[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

No he didn't miss the point at all. The joke in the scene was kyle's friend being annoyed that HE was the one "putting them in their faces" by not stopping talking about them when they tell him they don't care, they eventually get up and leave when he starts talking about them yet again

Maybe jet just watched the short clip. Or was just obsessed with the Harry and Meghan parts.

[Glenn.]

Let’s be honest there never any balance when it comes to Harry and Meghan especially from the irrational

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Bless….I think you missed the gist of it

no surprises there

[Liam-]

Ironically the only people personally referring to other members and making snide jabs at them, are the once’s that constantly claim to be victims of that exact thing, really showing yourself out today folks

[Glenn.]

I’m sure someone was going to notice

[Crimson Dynamo]

this is Olympic reaching to try and put a shine on his bollox

lets get some popcorn and keep watching..

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Ironically the only people personally referring to other members and making snide jabs at them, are the once’s that constantly claim to be victims of that exact thing, really showing yourself out today folks

A spoonful of your own medicine once in a while

[arista]

The Worldwide Privacy Tour


12:40AM ComedyCentralHD Tonight


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdXL7bqJnlk

40 sec clip

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

I’m sure someone was going to notice

You 3 are wrong though, The point of that was, yes, they're annoying, and yes they're unlikable, and yes they are victims, but when they're EVERYWHERE (ie, literally parking their private jet outside Kyle's and moving in next door), it's hard NOT to talk about them when that's all you see. Yes, it's annoying, but H/M are just constantly there on the mainstream media. On the worldwide privacy tour.

So, 3 people claiming not to know anything about South Park, have not watched in 20 years, all of a sudden know what the writers meant on Kyle subplot. It's all you have i guess, you're wrong of course, but you can't actually defend their portrayal in the show, so here we are.

The clutching at straws by the worshippers is gone way beyond cringe and humour now. The relentless one trick pony responses in every single one of these H/M threads too.

Harry and Meghan come out with new cringey waaaah weekly, and it's commented on on here. New "we're so hard done by bollocks" = new criticisms on here, and all over the GP spectrum. Your responses are almost word for word the same. You swoop in and defend the royal couple, and tell forum members how "sad" they are lol.

Take a long, hard, ironic look in the mirror.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Swan

You 3 are wrong though, The point of that was, yes, they're annoying, and yes they're unlikable, and yes they are victims, but when they're EVERYWHERE (ie, literally parking their private jet outside Kyle's and moving in next door), it's hard NOT to talk about them when that's all you see. Yes, it's annoying, but H/M are just constantly there on the mainstream media. On the worldwide privacy tour.

So, 3 people claiming not to know anything about South Park, have not watched in 20 years, all of a sudden know what the writers meant on Kyle subplot. It's all you have i guess, you're wrong of course, but you can't actually defend their portrayal in the show, so here we are.

The clutching at straws by the worshippers is gone way beyond cringe and humour now. The relentless one trick pony responses in every single one of these H/M threads too.

Harry and Meghan come out with new cringey waaaah weekly, and it's commented on on here. New "we're so hard done by bollocks" = new criticisms on here, and all over the GP spectrum. Your responses are almost word for word the same. You swoop in and defend the royal couple, and tell forum members how "sad" they are lol.

Take a long, hard, ironic look in the mirror.

That’s literally what they did to Kyle though?

Like did you actually watch it?

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by Swan

You 3 are wrong though, The point of that was, yes, they're annoying, and yes they're unlikable, and yes they are victims, but when they're EVERYWHERE (ie, literally parking their private jet outside Kyle's and moving in next door), it's hard NOT to talk about them when that's all you see. Yes, it's annoying, but H/M are just constantly there on the mainstream media. On the worldwide privacy tour.

So, 3 people claiming not to know anything about South Park, have not watched in 20 years, all of a sudden know what the writers meant on Kyle subplot. It's all you have i guess, you're wrong of course, but you can't actually defend their portrayal in the show, so here we are.

The clutching at straws by the worshippers is gone way beyond cringe and humour now. The relentless one trick pony responses in every single one of these H/M threads too.

Harry and Meghan come out with new cringey waaaah weekly, and it's commented on on here. New "we're so hard done by bollocks" = new criticisms on here, and all over the GP spectrum. Your responses are almost word for word the same. You swoop in and defend the royal couple, and tell forum members how "sad" they are lol.

Take a long, hard, ironic look in the mirror.

None of what you keep counteracting with changes the fact that in that particular scene Kyle was annoying his friends by complaining about them and inadvertently giving them even more attention, which is exactly what happens in real life.

[Liam-]

I don’t know why I’m getting included in things I literally never did

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

None of what you keep counteracting with changes the fact that in that particular scene Kyle was annoying his friends by complaining about them and inadvertently giving them even more attention, which is exactly what happens in real life.

Say you're right about that particular scene. Say i concede that maybe it could be interpreted as just that. Would you do me the courtesy of telling me what you think of their portrayal in the episode? And before you say "it's just a cartoon", it's actually a lot more than that, as i've shown you with various posts over the course of this thread (some have been deleted ofc).

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Swan

Say you're right about that particular scene. Say i concede that maybe it could be interpreted as just that. Would you do me the courtesy of telling me what you think of their portrayal in the episode? And before you say "it's just a cartoon", it's actually a lot more than that, as i've shown you with various posts over the course of this thread (some have been deleted ofc).

There’s nothing to interpret. It’s literally what happened. You’re only making yourself look silly saying otherwise.

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

There’s nothing to interpret. It’s literally what happened. You’re only making yourself look silly saying otherwise.

That's a matter of opinion....Im trying to give the benefit of the doubt here in order to have, for a change, an actual respectful for debate about the episode and Harry and Meghan's portrayal.

What do you think of their portrayal Glenn?

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Swan

That's a matter of opinion....Im trying to give the benefit of the doubt here in order to have, for a change, an actual respectful for debate about the episode and Harry and Meghan's portrayal.

What do you think of their portrayal Glenn?

Extremely over the top like most of their naysayers.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Extremely over the top like most of their naysayers.

So you admit they exaggerated H&M’s actual behaviour for comic effect, as is the norm with parody?

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Swan

You 3 are wrong though, The point of that was, yes, they're annoying, and yes they're unlikable, and yes they are victims, but when they're EVERYWHERE (ie, literally parking their private jet outside Kyle's and moving in next door), it's hard NOT to talk about them when that's all you see. Yes, it's annoying, but H/M are just constantly there on the mainstream media. On the worldwide privacy tour.

So, 3 people claiming not to know anything about South Park, have not watched in 20 years, all of a sudden know what the writers meant on Kyle subplot. It's all you have i guess, you're wrong of course, but you can't actually defend their portrayal in the show, so here we are.

The clutching at straws by the worshippers is gone way beyond cringe and humour now. The relentless one trick pony responses in every single one of these H/M threads too.

Harry and Meghan come out with new cringey waaaah weekly, and it's commented on on here. New "we're so hard done by bollocks" = new criticisms on here, and all over the GP spectrum. Your responses are almost word for word the same. You swoop in and defend the royal couple, and tell forum members how "sad" they are lol.

Take a long, hard, ironic look in the mirror.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by jet

So you admit they exaggerated H&M’s actual behaviour for comic effect, as is the norm with parody?

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by jet

So you admit they exaggerated H&M’s actual behaviour for comic effect, as is the norm with parody?

That’s not what I said at all. That’s your problem jet, you read what you want to and not what’s actually written.

I said it was EXTREMELY OTT LIKE MOST OF THEIR NAYSAYERS.

Like someone editing an IMDb page to say Lilibet was attending the Kings Coronation and saying Meghan must have done it. That sort of OTT.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Extremely over the top

….errr you did

OTT….an exaggeration of someone’s behaviour.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

That’s not what I said at all. That’s your problem jet, you read what you want to and not what’s actually written.

I said it was EXTREMELY OTT LIKE MOST OF THEIR NAYSAYERS.

Like someone editing an IMDb page to say Lilibet was attending the Kings Coronation and saying Meghan must have done it. That sort of OTT.

No, your example would be classed as someone making something up with no evidence to support it.
OTT means it is based on truth but exxagerated for effect.

[Glenn.]

It’s not an exaggeration of behaviour though, it’s an exaggeration of the debate that surrounds them. Surely everyone got that. Obviously not.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by jet

No, your example would be classed as someone making something up with no evidence to support it.
OTT means it is based on truth but exxagerated for effect.

95% of your argument is made up with no evidence to support it though…

But if you want to be pedantic about it look up the word extreme and then come back to me

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

It’s not an exaggeration of behaviour though, it’s an exaggeration of the debate that surrounds them. Surely everyone got that. Obviously not.

…